From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5D9C433EF for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:11:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BF2A60F56 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:11:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 0BF2A60F56 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=konsulko.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:51988 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfii8-0008KT-LQ for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 09:11:20 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53994) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfiMO-00040H-Mc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 08:48:53 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-xf35.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::f35]:40770) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfiMK-0003km-06 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 08:48:52 -0400 Received: by mail-qv1-xf35.google.com with SMTP id c3so1642715qvh.7 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 05:48:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=konsulko.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ocYCAJ1hWuwGvMC9a7b9Telaw8sd4r7kIGq1niB9cFw=; b=byVS2uCVVaYPWNcn0XLMGxVkxqwodbdOriPIhOCpE7Pqomq44Ig4mzPwDxNWGXVHE1 XYlpVsui2xBhwcLhq0VNDH1K69pvtUHZPvio7bwhnqGyOAgOvEKxH3eXrPqfU1woSuh6 KhYf07oYWnwggB5khgyswHUsM0EVgcOeZ9nCY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ocYCAJ1hWuwGvMC9a7b9Telaw8sd4r7kIGq1niB9cFw=; b=gJdd/bP1/VXdpiJXVGzujhLyEN6XJI2kqWqpRDfzVGm19hNSAta+b8b5upnq43VYEu 1HkRvScf1nD+DOwuYaHLU3U3HGZxuog7WNlvlvPd3x9lXIpjuQ72GKFEmuJpa12sPzA7 WttB8yROwCoreZrDoLdYx6/94UUbQM5JJ9ICyD78Nx0iyS1DBGkry9cFAgLuBOZLCFl3 TxuxoALa5bCdXnkiPW7qV5FdTyVom8dbCU8BkXvtLpzULOCmptAvVz+4cA0YzPiav5XR dBEpDMAtoIEJEl8+4Ryzf++GJ88ay5BN3c2QbpC4zolm14Sdurf1ceOOrTJ86KR3iy+Z 6SWg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jxymgJIWhezyaFaHe6k/pJFNiP5bVogpXueCdVL/ArBggdWkr g6OW8do1EyxEInqTRE1qbYvkGw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxOMOH4O1jRjmZL/pJsSRcVlStU/lqoBZFrUUPMDWjYioSaCwAHOTiWK4CfMMZvtQSEDgep2Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1bc7:: with SMTP id m7mr29443821qvc.20.1635338924814; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 05:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bill-the-cat (2603-6081-7b01-cbda-0044-6cb5-81ac-bb0c.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:6081:7b01:cbda:44:6cb5:81ac:bb0c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a4sm12116332qtm.12.2021.10.27.05.48.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 27 Oct 2021 05:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 08:48:40 -0400 From: Tom Rini To: Simon Glass Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] fdt: Make OF_BOARD a boolean option Message-ID: <20211027124840.GR8284@bill-the-cat> References: <20211013010120.96851-1-sjg@chromium.org> <20211013013450.GJ7964@bill-the-cat> <20211014145626.GC7964@bill-the-cat> <20211014152801.GF7964@bill-the-cat> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0pkK7MCEo5hACTvx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::f35; envelope-from=trini@konsulko.com; helo=mail-qv1-xf35.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Liviu Dudau , Neil Armstrong , Vladimir Oltean , Linus Walleij , Bin Meng , Kever Yang , Sean Anderson , Atish Patra , Zong Li , Stefan Roese , Fabio Estevam , Rainer Boschung , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Ozog , Stephen Warren , Oleksandr Andrushchenko , Heinrich Schuchardt , Niel Fourie , Michal Simek , Marek =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beh=FAn?= , Jerry Van Baren , Ramon Fried , Jagan Teki , Valentin Longchamp , Heiko Schocher , Peter Robinson , Sinan Akman , Thomas Fitzsimmons , Wolfgang Denk , Stephen Warren , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , Andre Przywara , Tim Harvey , Ashok Reddy Soma , Rick Chen , Alexander Graf , Green Wan , T Karthik Reddy , Anastasiia Lukianenko , Albert Aribaud , Michal Simek , Matthias Brugger , Leo , Tero Kristo , U-Boot Mailing List , David Abdurachmanov , Priyanka Jain , Ilias Apalodimas , Christian Hewitt , Aaron Williams , Tuomas Tynkkynen , Heinrich Schuchardt , Tianrui Wei , Bin Meng , Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= , Dimitri John Ledkov , Padmarao Begari Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" --0pkK7MCEo5hACTvx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:03:44PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:28, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:17:52AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 08:56, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:06:02PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Fran=C3=A7ois, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 11:35, Fran=C3=A7ois Ozog wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 13 oct. 2021 =C3=A0 16:49, Simon Glass a =C3=A9crit : > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi Tom, Bin,Fran=C3=A7ois, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 19:34, Tom Rini wr= ote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 09:29:14AM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: > > > > > >> > > Hi Simon, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 9:01 AM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > With Ilias' efforts we have dropped OF_PRIOR_STAGE and O= F_HOSTFILE so > > > > > >> > > > there are only three ways to obtain a devicetree: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > - OF_SEPARATE - the normal way, where the devicetree = is built and > > > > > >> > > > appended to U-Boot > > > > > >> > > > - OF_EMBED - for development purposes, the devicetree= is embedded in > > > > > >> > > > the ELF file (also used for EFI) > > > > > >> > > > - OF_BOARD - the board figures it out on its own > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > The last one is currently set up so that no devicetree i= s needed at all > > > > > >> > > > in the U-Boot tree. Most boards do provide one, but some= don't. Some > > > > > >> > > > don't even provide instructions on how to boot on the bo= ard. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > The problems with this approach are documented at [1]. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > In practice, OF_BOARD is not really distinct from OF_SEP= ARATE. Any board > > > > > >> > > > can obtain its devicetree at runtime, even it is has a d= evicetree built > > > > > >> > > > in U-Boot. This is because U-Boot may be a second-stage = bootloader and its > > > > > >> > > > caller may have a better idea about the hardware availab= le in the machine. > > > > > >> > > > This is the case with a few QEMU boards, for example. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > So it makes no sense to have OF_BOARD as a 'choice'. It = should be an > > > > > >> > > > option, available with either OF_SEPARATE or OF_EMBED. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > This series makes this change, adding various missing de= vicetree files > > > > > >> > > > (and placeholders) to make the build work. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Adding device trees that are never used sounds like a hack= to me. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > For QEMU, device tree is dynamically generated on the fly = based on > > > > > >> > > command line parameters, and the device tree you put in th= is series > > > > > >> > > has various hardcoded values which normally do n= ot show up > > > > > >> > > in hand-written dts files. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > I am not sure I understand the whole point of this. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I am also confused and do not like the idea of adding device= trees for > > > > > >> > platforms that are capable of and can / do have a device tre= e to give us > > > > > >> > at run time. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> (I'll just reply to this one email, since the same points appl= ies to > > > > > >> all replies I think) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I have been thinking about this and discussing it with people = for a > > > > > >> few months now. I've been signalling a change like this for ov= er a > > > > > >> month now, on U-Boot contributor calls and in discussions with= Linaro > > > > > >> people. I sent a patch (below) to try to explain things. I hop= e it is > > > > > >> not a surprise! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The issue here is that we need a devicetree in-tree in U-Boot,= to > > > > > >> avoid the mess that has been created by OF_PRIOR_STAGE, OF_BOA= RD, > > > > > >> BINMAN_STANDALONE_FDT and to a lesser extent, OF_HOSTFILE. Bet= ween > > > > > >> Ilias' series and this one we can get ourselves on a stronger = footing. > > > > > >> There is just OF_SEPARATE, with OF_EMBED for debugging/ELF use. > > > > > >> For more context: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20210919215111= =2E3830278-3-sjg@chromium.org/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> BTW I did suggest to QEMU ARM that they support a way of addin= g the > > > > > >> u-boot.dtsi but there was not much interest there (in fact the > > > > > >> maintainer would prefer there was no special support even for = booting > > > > > >> Linux directly!) > > > > > > > > > > > > i understand their point of view and agree with it. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> But in any case it doesn't really help U-Boot. I > > > > > >> think the path forward might be to run QEMU twice, once to get= its > > > > > >> generated tree and once to give the 'merged' tree with the U-B= oot > > > > > >> properties in it, if people want to use U-Boot features. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I do strongly believe that OF_BOARD must be a run-time option,= not a > > > > > >> build-time one. It creates all sorts of problems and obscurity= which > > > > > >> have taken months to unpick. See the above patch for the ratio= nale. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> To add to that rationale, OF_BOARD needs to be an option avail= able to > > > > > >> any board. At some point in the future it may become a common = way > > > > > >> things are done, e.g. TF-A calling U-Boot and providing a devi= cetree > > > > > >> to it. It doesn't make any sense to have people decide whether= or not > > > > > >> to set OF_BOARD at build time, thus affecting how the image is= put > > > > > >> together. We'll end up with different U-Boot build targets like > > > > > >> capricorn, capricorn_of_board and the like. It should be obvio= us where > > > > > >> that will lead. Instead, OF_BOARD needs to become a commonly u= sed > > > > > >> option, perhaps enabled by most/all boards, so that this sort = of build > > > > > >> explosion is not needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you mean that when boards are by construction providing a DT= B to U-Boot then I agree very much. But I don=E2=80=99t understand how the = patch set supports it as it puts dts files for those boards to be built. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> U-Boot needs to be flexible enough to > > > > > >> function correctly in whatever runtime environment in which it= finds > > > > > >> itself. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Also as binman is pressed into service more and more to build = the > > > > > >> complex firmware images that are becoming fashionable, it need= s a > > > > > >> definition (in the devicetree) that describes how to create th= e image. > > > > > >> We can't support that unless we are building a devicetree, nor= can the > > > > > >> running program access the image layout without that informati= on. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Fran=C3=A7ois's point about 'don't use this with any kernel' is > > > > > >> germane...but of course I am not suggesting doing that, since = OF_BOARD > > > > > >> is, still, enabled. We already use OF_BOARD for various boards= that > > > > > >> include an in-tree devicetree - Raspberry Pi 1, 2 and 3, for e= xample > > > > > >> (as I said in the cover letter "Most boards do provide one, bu= t some > > > > > >> don't."). So this series is just completing the picture by enf= orcing > > > > > >> that *some sort* of devicetree is always present. > > > > > > > > > > > > That seems inconsistent with the OF_BOARD becomes the default. > > > > > > > > > > I think the key point that will get you closer to where I am on t= his > > > > > issue, is that OF_BOARD needs to be a run-time option. At present= it > > > > > has build-time effects and this is quite wrong. If you go through= all > > > > > the material I have written on this I think I have motivated that= very > > > > > clearly. > > > > > > > > > > Another big issue is that I believe we need ONE devicetree for U-= Boot, > > > > > not two that get merged by U-Boot. Again I have gone through that= in a > > > > > lot of detail. > > > > > > > > I have a long long reply to your first reply here saved, but, maybe > > > > here's the biggest sticking point. To be clear, you agree that U-B= oot > > > > needs to support being passed a device tree to use, at run time, ye= s? > > > > > > Yes. The OF_BOARD feature provides this. > > > > > > > > > > > And in that case, would not be using the "fake" tree we built in? > > > > > > Not at runtime. > > > > OK. > > > > > > So is the sticking point here that we really have two classes of > > > > devices, one class where we will never ever be given the device tre= e at > > > > run time (think BeagleBone Black) and one where we will always be g= iven > > > > one at run time (think Raspberry Pi) ? > > > > > > I'm not sure it will be that black and white. I suspect there will be > > > (many) boards which can boot happily with the U-Boot devicetree but > > > can also accept one at runtime, if provided. For example, you may want > > > to boot with or without TF-A or some other, earlier stage. > > > > I'm not sure I see the value in making this a gray area. There's very > > much a class of "never" boards. There's also the class of "can" today. > > Maybe as part of a developer iterative flow it would be nice to not have > > to re-flash the prior stage to change a DT, and just do it in U-Boot > > until things are happy, but I'm not sure what the use case is for > > overriding the previous stage. > > > > Especially since the pushback on this series I think has all been "why > > are we copying in a tree to build with? We don't want to use it at run > > time!". And then softer push back like "Well, U-Boot says we have to > > include the device tree file here, but we won't use it...". >=20 > See below. >=20 > > > > > I believe we have got unstuck because OF_BOARD (perhaps inadvertently) > > > provided a way to entirely omit a devicetree from U-Boot, thus making > > > things like binman and U-Boot /config impossible, for example. So I > > > want to claw that back, so there is always some sort of devicetree in > > > U-Boot, as we have for rpi_3, etc. > > > > I really want to see what the binary case looks like since we could then > > kill off rpi_{3,3_b,4}_defconfig and I would need to see if we could > > then also do a rpi_arm32_defconfig too. > > > > I want to see less device trees in U-Boot sources, if they can come > > functionally correct from the hardware/our caller. > > > > And I'm not seeing how we make use of "U-Boot /config" if we also don't > > use the device tree from build time at run time, ignoring the device > > tree provided to us at run time by the caller. >=20 > Firstly I should say that I find building firmware very messy and > confusing these days. Lots of things to build and it's hard to find > the instructions. It doesn't have to be that way, but if we carry on > as we are, it will continue to be messy and in five years you will > need a Ph.D and a lucky charm to boot on any modern board. My > objective here is to simplify things, bringing some consistency to the > different components. Binman was one effort there. I feel that putting > at least the U-Boot house in order, in my role as devicetree > maintainer (and as author of devicetree support in U-Boot back in > 2011), is the next step. Yes, it's Not Great. I don't like my handful of build-BOARD.sh scripts that know where to grab other known-good binaries of varying licenses that are needed to assemble something that boots. > If we set things up correctly and agree on the bindings, devicetree > can be the unifying configuration mechanism through the whole of > firmware (except for very early bits) and into the OS, this will set > us up very well to deal with the complexity that is coming. >=20 > Anyway, here are the mental steps that I've gone through over the past > two months: >=20 > Step 1: At present, some people think U-Boot is not even allowed to > have its own nodes/properties in the DT. It is an abuse of the > devicetree standard, like the /chosen node but with less history. We > should sacrifice efficiency, expedience and expandability on the altar > of 'devicetree is a hardware description'. How do we get over that > one? Wel, I just think we need to accept that U-Boot uses devicetree > for its own purposes, as well as for booting the OS. I am not saying Yes, we need to have properties present in the device tree, and just like how "linux," is a valid vendor prefix for the linux kernel (but not used I would expect by the BSD families) we have cases that need "u-boot," properties. > it always has to have those properties, but with existing features > like verified boot, SPL as well as complex firmware images where > U-Boot needs to be able to find things in the image, it is essential. > So let's just assume that we need this everywhere, since we certainly > need it in at least some places. No, we can't / shouldn't assume we need this everywhere. A lot of places? Yes. But some features are going to be optional. A valid must be supported use case is something like a Pi where the hardware gives us a device tree, the tree is correct and some features in U-Boot aren't needed (SPL) nor possibly supported immediately (verified boot). We can go off on a tangent about how useful it would be to have HW platforms that are both common and can demonstrate a number of features, but that's its own problem to solve. > (stop reading here if you disagree, because nothing below will make > any sense...you can still use U-Boot v2011.06 which doesn't have > OF_CONTROL :-) >=20 > Step 2: Assume U-Boot has its own nodes/properties. How do they get > there? Well, we have u-boot.dtsi files for that (the 2016 patch > "6d427c6b1fa binman: Automatically include a U-Boot .dtsi file"), we > have binman definitions, etc. So we need a way to overlay those things > into the DT. We already support this for in-tree DTs, so IMO this is > easy. Just require every board to have an in-tree DT. It helps with > discoverability and documentation, anyway. That is this series. > > (I think most of us are at the beginning of step 2, unsure about it > and worried about step 3) >=20 > Step 3: Ah, but there are flows (i.e. boards that use a particular > flow only, or boards that sometimes use a flow) which need the DT to > come from a prior stage. How to handle that? IMO that is only going to > grow as every man and his dog get into the write-a-bootloader > business. We need a way to provide the U-Boot nodes/properties in a > form that the prior stage can consume and integrate with its build > system. Is TF-A the only thing being discussed here? If so, let's just > do it. We have the u-boot.dtsi and we can use binman to put the image > together, for example. Or we can get clever and create some sort of > overlay dtb. >=20 > Step 3a. But I don't want to do that. a) If U-Boot needs this stuff > then it will need to build it in and use two devicetrees, one internal > and one from the prior stage....well that is not very efficient and it > is going to be confusing for people to figure out what U-Boot is > actually doing. But we actually already do that in a lot of cases > where U-Boot passes a DT to the kernel which is different to the one > it uses. So perhaps we have three devicetrees? OMG. b) Well then > U-Boot can have its own small devicetree with its bits and then U-Boot > can merge the two when it starts. Again that is not very efficient. It > means that U-Boot cannot be controlled by the prior stage (e.g. to get > its public key from there or to enable/disable the console), so > unified firmware config is not possible. It will get very confusing, > particularly for debugging U-Boot. c) Some other scheme to avoid > accepting step 3...please stop! How the nodes should get there is how the rest of the nodes in a system get there. Bindings are submitted and reviewed. The authoritative source of the dtses in question then has them, like any other property. > Step 4: Yes, but there is QEMU, which makes the devicetree up out of > whole cloth. What about that? Well, we are just going to have to deal > with that. We can easily merge in the U-Boot nodes/properties and > update the U-Boot CI scripts to do this, as needed, e.g. with > qemu-riscv64_spl. It's only one use case, although Xen might do > something similar. >=20 > To my mind, that deals with both the build-time and run-time issues. > We have a discoverable DT in U-Boot, which should be considered the > source of truth for most boards. We can sync it with Linux > automatically with the tooling that I hope Rob Herring will come up > with. We can use an empty one where there really is no default, > although I'd argue that is making perfect an enemy of the good. >=20 > Step 5: If we get clever and want to remove them from the U-Boot tree > and pick them up from somewhere else, we can do that with sufficient > tooling. Perhaps we should set a timeline for that? A year? Two? Six? These last two paragraphs condense what I think is honestly close to a decade of debate / discussion down to a fiat "U-Boot will have the DTS files". I don't want that. I don't think any of the other projects that want to leverage DTS files want that. > To repeat, if we set things up correctly and agree on the bindings, > devicetree can be the unifying configuration mechanism through the > whole of firmware (except for very early bits) and into the OS. I feel > this will set us up very well to deal with the complexity that is > coming. Sure, it could. But that doesn't mean that U-Boot is where the dts files live. --=20 Tom --0pkK7MCEo5hACTvx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGzBAABCgAdFiEEGjx/cOCPqxcHgJu/FHw5/5Y0tywFAmF5SqQACgkQFHw5/5Y0 tyySCQv+MAcIgmH/SOQrYxxsyzmamfZ5CdxFz8dX207XGecPcOcBlXWDyTilUNo3 QEHoewljsznTrELSW5XQ6mDKrRNvYpVzoybHVlrqQoNbW0uMOsFsyY7I4vqywYq+ rIvN9dDr534B3gjFE4O1rdAQ/wiEuf+A9teYBHv/O5JMmGAg/JKeA60a6Mw0uBKT E2TNedeBYLB/e7NihQ43n3VL5tpkOWexkp6XFaXfROaS1UGlLGKIHeP6OXR/Liki hey6ZXu6pJs64StpC3YeaxRaG2hgUVDHXTHy2CpUJFXC1l8FcuKyIc0Jk3/E865/ UJeahrjxbzcBzsljubUO0iFB+o/12Iz/vCjMGfPin9HcZhZMb8QtClwDOGZ3rFGj YESMsWkE0rm7s16noD04tU56l/VuljMVYVXjw5mPlC7t8gpO854+rpaH2MuUadzn ujBgjMgxYjam6+KU0SYNljL4MbCa4AQoLG1VpE7E/dNW8k2hHd8+1RwVTHD3BrTz NwNLMPls =Dct8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0pkK7MCEo5hACTvx--